|
Do you need to buy a birthday, anniversary or holiday gift? Visit the Galleria!  Add your
comments on this week's "What
is the Deal?" column at Uncle Hiram's Bulletin Board.March 9, 2003 What is the deal with President Bush? By Jan A. Larson As I was thinking about my column for this week, it occurred to me that France, Germany and Russia had seemingly backed the US into a corner with respect to the passage of a UN resolution declaring Saddam Hussein being in violation of the terms of UN resolution 1441. That resolution, passed by the Security Council last November, mandated the "immediate and total" disarmament of Iraq. I was questioning the wisdom of asking for another resolution given the (apparently) slim chance such a resolution had of being approved by the Security Council. It seemed that Saddam Hussein and his willing partners, France, Germany and Russia had outmaneuvered the President, putting the US on the defensive in the effort to oust Saddam by force. This was, more or less, the outcome that I had envisioned in my column of December 1, 2002. Is it in the best interest of the US to act without a mandate of the Security Council and with a smaller coalition of nations? I was having doubts. Just as I was about to write about how this situation had been mismanaged by the White House, the President held a news conference that clearly, at least to me, explained where he stood with respect to a new UN resolution. It is clear that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power in Iraq. The only questions remaining are how and when will he be removed. There is a great effort on the part of many to delay his removal. What could possibly be accomplished by further delay? He's not going to change his spots. He's not going to suddenly decide to declare and then destroy his weapons and weapons facilities. He's not going to suddenly become a benevolent leader that puts the welfare of the Iraqi people foremost on his agenda. Saddam Hussein is playing every angle to remain in power and to influence world opinion against the United States. As each day passes, he has more time to strengthen his defenses, distribute money and weapons to terrorists and to further disseminate his propaganda. All of these things serve to make his removal, which must happen, that much more difficult. The world will not be better at any time by leaving him in power. The Iraqi people will not live better lives and the world will not be safer. The President spoke of not wanting to take the risk that the United States will be a safer place with Saddam Hussein in power. He spoke of the risks of inaction being much greater than the risks of action. He spoke of not letting outsiders determine the course of action for the United States. If the nations of the UN Security Council are with us, fine. If not, then we must act in our best interest. I believe the President when he says that his interest is in the safety of the American people. I agree that it is time for the nations of the world to show if they are with us or against us. History may not show whether the President's actions are correct, but history would certainly record the deadly consequences of inaction, delay and acquiescence to the conflicted positions of France, Germany and Russia. This is not a risk that the President is willing to take and neither am I -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
|
